Alfreton florist rises from ashes of devastating fire
Ms Insley said: "We've worked so hard since 2020, we weren't willing to give it up."
The fire service said the blaze was caused by an electrical fault in a tumble dryer in the salon.It left the roof needing repairs, said Ms Insley, and without being able to return inside for several weeks, water damage had destroyed stock and led to mould inside Enchanted Rose's premises.Ms Insley said: "It was just thousands of pounds worth of stock, not to mention furniture."I had made a handmade 7ft wedding arch that had just got completely ruined."Now it smells in there, there's mould all over the walls, the ceiling's come down, the flooring needs to be ripped out, the electrics are all gone - companies want their stuff back but it was ruined."The fire-hit building remains clad in scaffolding and neither business is able to operate from it currently, said Ms Insley.
Instead Enchanted Rose, which has had a shop in Alfreton for three-and-a-half-years, picked up the keys to a unit in High Street previously used by Shoezone on 1 May.The store will be ready to open to the public on Saturday, with Gogglebox's Siddiqui family cutting the ribbon.Ms Insley said: "We've met the most wonderful landlord, he even painted the shop pink for us - which I don't think he was overly impressed with when they were coming out covered in pink paint."The support of the community was so strong that we couldn't just give up on them or our customers, everyone has just been so kind."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Concrete sales plunge to 62-year low as hopes for Labour's building boom fade
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour's hopes of building more houses. Sales of ready-mixed concrete fell by 11.5pc in the three months to June against the previous three months, according to data from the Mineral Products Association (MPA), which represents producers. The product is widely-used in housebuilding to lay foundations, and provide the base for flooring and driveways. The figures suggest that Labour will miss its target of building 1.5m new homes by the end of this Parliament 'by a significant margin', the MPA said. Concrete sales have fallen by a third in 10 years, and more than halved over the last 20 years. The drop means that annual sales have not been this low since 1963 – before the nationwide housing and infrastructure building boom that transformed Britain. The MPA said that sales of other building materials, such as mortar and sand, also fell, with demand for most products at 'historically low levels'.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
A fair price to the public for water nationalisation
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, claims that water cannot be put into public ownership because it would cost £100bn, and that the government would have to raid the NHS budget to fund it ('Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog, 21 July). This is inaccurate. The People's Commission on the Water Sector has investigated the £100bn figure in detail and found that the costs are based on biased evidence and have no basis in law. We have also found that any temporary funds needed to refinance the water sector would be through ringfenced bonds and would not affect the NHS budget. The environment secretary should not use figures that are clearly misleading and have no bearing on the actual costs of public ownership. The £100bn figure is the regulatory capital value (RCV) of the water companies, used by Ofwat and calculated using the market value of water companies in 1989, adding capital spending and depreciation since, multiplied by the retail prices index. Two water companies listed on the stock exchange have market values around half their RCV. KKR merely offered £4bn in its takeover bid for Thames Water, which has an RCV of £21bn, before it pulled out in June. RCV bears no resemblance to the market value of the company and should not be used as the cost of public ownership. Market value is also not the correct way to value a water company. In law, the government would simply need to pay a fair value, not market value, to take a company into public ownership. This would take into account the inadequate investment in the sewage infrastructure, the dividends paid, the high debts incurred which have weakened financial resilience, and the huge costs required to rectify the damage done under private ownership. The law ultimately has to ensure that a 'fair balance' has been struck in the public interest, and 'appropriate value' for secured creditors. In the case of failed water companies that have returned billions to shareholders and creditors, while leaving billions more in repair costs, this would mean paying something closer to zero for transfer into public Becky Malby, Dr Kate Bayliss, Prof Frances Cleaver, Prof Ewan McGaugheyThe People's Commission on the Water Sector Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
